servants, and she asses and camels." Some reflection has been made upon the conduct of Abram in accepting these presents; but those who are acquainted with the usages of the East know that he dared not refuse them.

So Sarai was taken to the house of Pharaoh. (2) This lamentable result of his weak equivocation did not so far rouse the patriarch's faith or courage as to make him avow the actual relationship between her and himself. But at this juncture it pleased God to interfere to prevent the evil consequences, which human means could not well have averted, by inflicting on Pharaoh and his house "great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife." What these plagues were we are not clearly told; but probably some grievous disease, of such a nature as, joined to some intimation to that effect,* rendered it manifest to him that the infliction was intended to prevent or punish his designs upon the wife of another man. On this, the king sent for Abram, and after rebuking him with some severity for the dissimulation of his conduct, which had placed all parties in a dangerous position, desired him to take his wife and leave the country, at the same time giving orders to his people to facilitate his departure.

Seeing that the early condition of Egypt is a subject of great historical interest in itself, as well as from the early connection of the Hebrews with that country, the visit of Abram to it awakens our curiosity, and makes us studious to collect all the information which the account of that visit furnishes or indicates. The facts are few compared with those which transpire at a subsequent date; but these few are valuable.

We observe, in the first place, that this visit of Abram settles the question whether this, the lower part of Egypt, was then dry. It was dry, and inhabited by an industrious agricultural population, who extracted from the soil so much more food than sufficed for their own subsistence, that, as previously noted, the country had already become the asylum of those who were oppressed by famine in other countries.

The impression which the account of the transactions in which Abram was engaged in Egypt affords, is very different from that which we receive from the account of his dealings with the petty sovereigns and states of Canaan. With them, Abram and the other patriarchs treat very much as with equals as in the instances of the kings of Siddim, the king of Gerar, and "the children of Heth," not to mention the comparatively late instance of the affair between Jacob's family and the prince and people of Shechem. In all these cases the patriarchs are treated with deference and respect; and give free utterance to their sentiments, even those likely to be most unpalatable. But before Pharaoh, Abram, when reproved by him, answers not a word; and Josephus says that the intimation came from the priests or diviners whom the king consulted; aud that the infliction consisted of a sedition as well as of a bodily disease. But most commentators, having regard to the similar affair with Abimelech, suppose that Pharaoh received this intimation in a dream or vision.

+ Scripture furnishes another and most conclusive fact on this question, by informing us that Zoan, or Tanis, in Lower Egypt, was a city so proverbially ancient, that Moses indicates the autiquity of Hebron by telling us that it was built seven years before Zoau in Egypt. (Num. xiii. 22.) Now Hebron existed when Abram arrived in Canaan, and we do not know that its date was then recent.

VOL. I.

F

if the royal gifts which he received from the king of Egypt testified the consideration to which the foreign emir was entitled, it was the consideration of a superior to one whom he wished to benefit. We direct attention the rather to this circumstance, as Abram had a feeling in the matter of presents which led him, on every other occasion with which we are acquainted, to decline those which were offered to him; for which, on one of those occasions, he assigns to the king of Sodom the dignified reason,-"I will not take anything that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, 'I have made Abram rich.'"

In short, the idea which we derive from the account of this remarkable affair, is that Lower Egypt was even then a great and flourishing kingdom, ruled by a powerful and magnificent monarch, invested with many of the characteristics by which an Oriental despotism has in all ages been distinguished, and surrounded by courtiers, who made it their prime object to minister to his tastes and passions. It will also be noted that this monarch was thus early distinguished by the title of Phrah, or, as we spell it, Pharaoh, which in all subsequent ages was borne by the native sovereigns of Egypt, and which is the Egyptian name for the sun, applied by way of eminence to him whom his subjects regarded as the chief of men. * It may, moreover, not be unimportant to observe that slavery existed at this time in Egypt, as it did also in other countries. This is shown by Pharaoh's gift-men-slaves and women-slaves-to Abram ; and if, as might be suggested, a foreign dynasty ruled then in Egypt, it is not impossible that at least some of these slaves may have been native Egyptians. Hagar "the bond woman," of whom we shall presently read, was probably one of these women-slaves; and she is called an "Egyptian."

It would be a valuable piece of information to know what king or dynasty reigned in Egypt at the time of Abram's visit. But the sacred narrative does not mention any king of Egypt by his proper name till after the time of Solomon; and the Egyptian chronology at, and for some time after, this early date is still involved in much uncertainty and confusion, notwithstanding the light which has been thrown on the general subject by the progress made in deciphering the hieroglyphic inscriptions. But all the information from this source which has lately transpired, or with which further inquiry has made us acquainted, tends greatly to confirm the view of the matter which we have had occasion to state in another place.†

One of the best established facts in the very early history of Egypt is, that its lower country was for a long series of years (260) under the dominion of a race of pastoral nomades, while the upper country continued subject to the native sovereigns. This great fact has abundance of incidental confirmation, although many particulars which it might be most desirable to know remain in obscurity, and among these is the date at which the pastoral dominion in Egypt commenced or terminated. In the work to which we have referred, we have shown the strong probability that it had been put an end to before the time of Joseph; and in confirmation of this we may now adduce the testimony of Mr. Wilkinson, who, from the state of the earliest monuments, and from the information which they afford, conceives that the irruption of the pastors was anterior to the erection of any building now extant in Egypt, and long before the accession of the 17th dynasty, that is, in the earlier periods of Egyptian history, previous to the era of Osirtasen I. The monuments of that inonarch satisfactorily prove that in his reign and that of his second successor, the Egyptians had already extended their conquests over some of the tribes of Asia, and were consequently free from any enemies within their own valley.§ This writer also suggests, as a question, whether the dominion of the shepherd-kings, as they are called, in Egypt, may not have been overthrown by this Osirtasen. Now this king was, as Mr. Wilkinson conceives, coeval with Joseph, and must, at least, have been nearly so; and

"I have frequently had occasion to notice the true meaning and purport of this name. I shall therefore only observe, that it is written in Hebrew, Phrah,, and is taken from the Egyptian word Pire, or Phre (pronounced Phra), signifying the suu, and represented in hieroglyphics by the hawk and globe, or sun, over the royal bauners. It was through the well-known system of analogies that the king obtained this title, being the chief of earthly, as the sun was of heavenly, bodies. But the word is not derived from, or related to, Ouro, 'king,' as Josephus supposes (Antiq.' viii. c. 6). Phouro is like Pharaoh; but the name is Phrah in Hebrew, and Pharaoh is an unwarranted corruption."-Wilkinson's 'Ancient Egyptians,' vol. i. p. 43.

+ Pictorial Bible,' notes to Gen. xxv. 34, and Exod. i. 8.

The 17th dynasty commenced B.C. 1651, and was introduced by Osirtasen II. The first Osirtasen belonged to the 16th dynasty, and Wilkinson thinks he began to reign about B.c. 1740, and reigned forty-three years.

§ Wilkinson, vol. i. ch. 1.

it is not a little remarkable that in concluding, from the evidence of monuments, that the pastor-kings were expelled before the accession of Osirtasen I., he obtains exactly the same conclusion as that to which Hales and Faber arrived, when, on purely historical data, they conceived that this great change took place before, but not long before, Joseph was made governor of Egypt; Hales fixing it about the year 1885, B.C. This coincidence of independent testimony, taking different lines of evidence, is very important; and its use for our present purpose is, that if the pastoral dynasty was extinguished before the time of Joseph's exaltation, it must have existed at the time of Abram's visit to Egypt, 185 years before, seeing that the conquering nomades occupied the country 260 years. No one supposes that their dominion had terminated before the visit of Abram; and that it had not, is indirectly evinced by the sacred narrative itself. In the time of Joseph's government every nomade shepherd was detested at the Egyptian court, in consequence of the oppressive and humiliating dominion which a race of pastors had exercised in the country. Of this we hear nothing in the time of Abram; although, if this race had then recently been expelled, the manifestations of that hatred must have been more manifest and lively in his time than nearly two centuries later. The result of all these considerations tends to intimate that one of the shepherd kings reigned in Lower Egypt at the time of Abram's journey to that country; and this conclusion, while it serves to explain some differing circumstances which we find in the Egyptian court as described in the respective times of Abram and Joseph, throws considerable light upon the picture which, from these accounts, the mind forms of both; and more especially illustrates the fact that, while the family of Jacob found favour at the court of Egypt, and was admitted into the country only for the sake of Joseph, Abram found no difficulty of access to the country, and was treated with consideration by the court in that very character-as a pastoral chief—which was regarded with abomination by the native government of a later day.

The fragments of Manetho intimate that the conquering nomades, while in occupation of Egypt, gradually adapted themselves to the customs and practices of the native Egyptians, while they were careful to maintain their alliance with their kindred tribes of the desert. And as this process of adaptation must have been in operation not less than seventy-five years, at the time now under our notice, we need not wonder that the reigning king bore the Egyptian sovereign title of Pharaoh, and that the external aspect of the court was probably not very different to what it might have been under a native prince; always excepting the sympathy between it and the desert nomades, as contrasted with the hatred of the ensuing native dynasties towards the same race of people.

The degree of attention which has here been given to this interesting subject, while not unsuitably subjoined to the notice of Abram's sojourn in Egypt, forms a necessary introduction to the whole history of the Hebrew intercourse with that country.

By the time that the patriarch returned from Egypt to the land of Canaan, the scarcity which had driven him thence appears to have ceased. He retraced his steps through the southern part of the country, and at last arrived at the place between Bethel and Hai, where his tents had been before, and at the altar which he had formerly built upon one of the neighbouring hills he again enjoyed the satisfaction of " calling upon the name of JEHOVAH.”

Since Abram and Lot were formerly encamped in the same place, their substance had been greatly increased. We are now told that "Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold." The royal gifts of the king of Egypt had, no doubt, contributed considerably to the increase of his previous stock of cattle; and as the precious metals are mentioned among the articles of his wealth immediately on his return from Egypt, they were most likely obtained in the same country, either by the gift of the king or from the sale of the produce of his flocks to the towns-people. This is, indeed, the first occasion on which the precious metals are mentioned, in all history, as articles of property and wealth—that is, as shown by subsequent transactions as the representatives of value. Lot, who had hitherto been the constant companion of Abram's migrations, was also rich, having great possessions of "flocks, and herds, and tents." That he also is not said to possess silver and gold is a rather remarkable omission, and may be significant.

F 2

Their united pastoral wealth was so great that it became manifest that the two parties could not remain together much longer. There is not, indeed, any scarcity of water in the district in which they were then encamped; but the land unappropriated by the Canaanites in that part of the country was insufficient to furnish free pasture to all their flocks and herds; and hence quarrels about the choice and rights of pasture arose between the shepherds of Abram and Lot, who were probably more zealous about the separate interests and rights of their masters than they were themselves. Lot, however, does not in his general character appear to have been at all indifferent to his own interests; and the generous and disinterested proposal which Abram made to prevent all future difference or difficulty, looks very much like an answer from him to some remonstrance or complaint which his nephew had been making. He said, "Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we be brethren. Is not the whole land before thee? Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou wilt depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left." In the life of a Bedouin pastor, the concession of a choice of pasturage to another chief is the most extraordinary act of generosity which he can possibly show, in consequence of the large interests which are involved; and, under all the circumstances, it becomes almost sublime when the claims of the party to whom the concession is made to the right of election are only equal or, as in the present case, inferior to those of the conceder. An English grazier may have some idea of this, but it is only by a Bedouin that it can be fully appreciated.

Lot made no scruple of availing himself of the advantage which his uncle's liberal proposal gave to him. From the heights on which they stood, the vale of Siddim offered a most inviting prospect. It was well watered everywhere-which alone is a great advantage to the possessor of flocks and herds-which, with the exuberant vegetation which resulted from it, with the prospect of fair cities here and there, gave it the aspect of a terrestrial paradise. The low, broad, and warm valley, fertilized by the fine river which passed through it, also suggested a resemblance to the rich valley of the Nile, from which they had lately come. Lot, beholding all this, made choice of all the plain of the Jordan for his pasture-ground, and soon after removed to it with all his possessions. We are told that "he pitched his tent towards Sodom” -or, made the neighbourhood of that city his head-quarters, not probably caring so much as Abram might have done about the depraved character of the inhabitants; for he could not well have been ignorant of the fact that the men of Sodom were notoriously "wicked, and sinners before the LORD exceedingly."

Now at last, by the operation of circumstances, without any immediate command from God, Abram was brought to that state of complete isolation from all his natural connexions which the Divine purpose, to preserve his future race apart and unmixed, rendered necessary. But although this present separation, which left the patriarch, more completely than before, alone in a strange land, was not immediately caused by the Divine interposition, no sooner had Lot taken his departure than the Lord again manifested his presence to Abram, to cheer and encourage him by the renewal, in more distinct terms, of the promises formerly made to him. To the childless man was promised a posterity countless as the dust-the future inheritors of the land in which he dwelt-which land he was now directed to traverse, in its length and breadth, to survey the goodly heritage of his children, and to take, as it were, possession of it in their behalf.

In obedience to this direction, Abram broke up his camp near Bethel and departed, proceeding first towards the south. His next encampment was formed about a mile from the town of Arba (afterwards called Hebron), in the fair and fertile valley of Mamre, where he pitched his tent under a terebinth tree, which became in after ages famous for his sake. The patriarch was still at this place when his history brings us acquainted with the first warlike transaction of which any record remains.

It appears that, in this age, the Assyrian power predominated in Western Asia; and we should not wonder if it be ultimately discovered that even the " Shepherd-kings of Egypt were Assyrian viceroys, which discovery would throw great light on several circumstances in the lives of the patriarchs. Be this as it may, we learn that some years before the date at

which we are now arrived, an Assyrian force had crossed the Euphrates, and made extensive conquests in Syria. This force appears to have been composed of detachments from the several small nations or tribes which composed or were subject to the Assyrian empire, each commanded by its own melech or petty king. Of these kings, one named " Chedorlaomer, king of Elam," probably Elymais, appears to have been left viceroy of the conquests west of the Euphrates. This chief, in the end, resolved to carry his arms southward, and to this end took with him, not only the warriors drawn from his own clan, but those commanded by three other of such "kings," namely, Amraphael, king of Shinar (or Babylonia); Arioch, king of Ellasar; and another called Tidal, who, from his title, "king of Goïm," or, if we translate the word," of peoples," may seem to have ruled a mixed people or union of small tribes. Although the history only requires the mention of the vale of Siddim, we think it wrong to infer from thence that no other district of southern Syria was involved in the consequences of this expedition. The intermediate country, particularly on the coast of the Jordan and the country beyond, possessed the Horim of Mount Seir, probably experienced its effects, although we only read that the four commanders made war with the five petty kings of the plain, being Bera, king of Sodom; Birsha, king of Gomorrah; Shinab, king of Admah; Shember, king of Zeboïm; and the unnamed king of Bela, afterwards called Zoar. Being defeated, these five kings were made tributary to Chedorlaomer, whom we have supposed to have been viceroy of the Assyrian conquests, west of the Euphrates; and in this state of subjection they remained twelve years. But, in the thirteenth year, some unrecorded circumstances encouraged the kings of the plain to withhold their tribute, in which act we may reasonably conclude that other districts of southern Syria concurred. The year following, Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him undertook a new expedition to punish the revolters; and that they did not proceed at once against the kings of the plain, but went to the countries beyond the vale of Siddim, and only noticed it on their return northward, seems to us to give a very clear sanction to our conclusion—that other neighbouring districts were also subjugated by the Assyrians thirteen years before, and participated in the revolt of the thirteenth year. And this conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that the mere incidents of this expedition would seem to have been far more important than what we must otherwise suppose to have been its sole or principal object. Coming from the north, the Assyrian commanders traversed the country east of the Jordan, overthrowing in their way the gigantic races by which that country appears to have been inhabited. The river Jordan at this time flowed on in a widened stream, beyond the vale of Siddim to the eastern arm of the Red Sea; and continuing their progress southward, along the eastern borders of that river, the invaders smote the Horim who dwelt in the caverns and fortresses of Mount Seir. Where they crossed the Jordan we know not, but we next find them returning northward along its western border, reducing the tribes who inhabited the verge of the wilderness of Paran, on the south of Palestine, namely, the Amalekites, and such of the Amorites as abode on the south-western borders of the vale of Siddim. Arriving at last at that vale, the five kings by whom it was ruled went forth to give them battle. But they were defeated and fled. Now the vale of Siddim was of a bituminous nature, and its surface was in consequence much broken up into deep pits and fissures, into which a large number of the natives who had been in the battle were, in their flight, driven by the victors. Those who escaped, knowing that the towns offered no safety, fled to the neighbouring mountains. The conquerors then proceeded to ravage the cities of the plain. In this they met with no opposition, as all the adult population fit to bear arms had been defeated in the battle. They took all the moveable property and provisions and departed, carrying away with them as captives the women, children, and other people whom they found in the towns. That they did not burn the towns and destroy the people, indicates that the usages of war were less barbarous in this age than they afterwards became-perhaps, because war was as yet a new thing, and human life continued to be regarded as a thing too precious even to those who held it in their power-to be needlessly sacrificed.

Among the prisoners was Lot, who, it appears, had relinquished the custom of dwelling in tents, and the peculiar character of a nomade shepherd, and had taken the first step into the